Here's a conundrum for Hockey... Some years ago, the Government introduced a luxury cars tax for the purpose of protecting the local automotive industry....to such an extent that a $600k Bentley's price was made up of about $325k in luxury tax.... Now that the local car industry seems rooted, will Hockey lift the luxury car tax as there's nothing to protect....and how much is that going to cost the Government in lost taxes...or will he just leave it there just to prop up the books....................................... :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q
I do not deny the figures or the fact many women do not return to working life. Again that is their choice and they make it with the knowledge of what welfare they have to provide for them. That in itself to me is an issue of different address and the mentality of being provided for by the government. However, this policy is simply to address a basic difference between the sexes, NOT to pay for women care for children but to address the financial burden placed on business which is used to deter business from employing women. Yes, but even if they simply left their employment to have children creating further cost to business to train people to fill the roll left, who is going to pay anyway??? Welfare is paid by all business included, so the idea that this policy will in some way make things different with who has to pay is somewhat trying to change the onus of who pays for what. BUT if 50% of women returning to work is better than NONE. Would be good and seriously that does need addressing. The mentality of welfare being necessary is something that that actually promotes the ideal of money for nothing. This is an area that really does need addressing, BUT equality between the sexes also needs to be addressed. The real question is how??? Yes, and the phobia of race, religion and political persuasion scares many people. All you have to do is look on this forum to see that ignorance. BUT, you must remember that the poor also generally have the problem of breeding far too many people. Not because of anything untoward but generally because they have little else in the world, so sex is something to feel good and frankly has no financial borders. Well, this is something of interest that moves toward productivity. Many studies have shown that people in job sharing position have higher productivity rates than people in full time positions. Why object with part time positions if those people are producing more for your business than one person. Why would anybody want to pay one person who produces same day in day out, when two who share the same job with very little extra cost to produce (I believe on average) an extra 25% productivity??? Of course this depends on the job at hand. There are many areas of productivity increases which are discriminated against because people cannot perceive how they work and that people just want all their cake an eat it. BUT one must look at these things objectively.
We cannot forget that women and men are biologically different and perform different bilogical functions, and by turning our society upside-down so that some women can feel equal to men, is a ridiculous proposition that is being facilitated by maternity leave. Families can still have children, and the woman return to work, but being paid of this privilege is a non-sense, and a welfare expense our society cannot afford to maintain just to satisfy women wanting to be equal to men. Forcing tax payers and businesses to pay a woman to stay at home and care for her child, and guaranteeing her job, is not creating gender equality. Its dividing the sexes further, and turning employers away from hiring women within child bearing age. This might sound horrible, but my wife, who controls the HR side of our businesses has made a general rule "not" to hire any young women regardless of their skills and qualifications. I would bet money that the studies showing productivity increasing due to shared jobs verses one full-time position, comes more from these individuals being scared of losing their jobs due to the nature of being part-time. I would prefer to hire an individual who is the sole income provided for his/her family, rather than paying two women/men to share jobs in a family with two incomes.
True that this should not really be needed to address such a situation, BUT as business continue to demand that this very issue is the reason they do not employ women into jobs is. Fact is that while women are considered fair enough for menial jobs they are held back from gaining better job opportunities simply because the specter of costs to business should they get pregnant. Australia really loses with the fact many women are not considered for their ability but for their sex. Women have great deal (in many case more) to offer the workforce but are held back due to costs that MIGHT be incurred. They are often paid less (which leads to exploitation) to gain those better jobs. By removing that cost specter from the issue they are more likely to get considered for better positions. I certainly do understand your wife's stance and this is the very reason the policy is intended to address the inequality. BUT I do also agree that other welfare detracts from this policy, with baby bonus, family payments and other payments to simply stay home and care for children this policy will be used to do just what you are saying. The baby bonus was a short sighted policy to address aging population, a policy that is simply throwing money at an issue and expecting it to go away. While it sounds so much like an ALP policy, it was not. We could go on, However, more incentive to eradicate need for such welfare should be considered and implemented. The studies simply showed that individuals who were job sharing had more productive work lives than those who do not job share. The findings of most demonstrated that full time workers would get to certain point in a day and productivity would fall away while job sharing would allow for fresh body to come in and take up that productivity level. It is not infallible as there are many other issues in this area effect the productivity but generally as small area of employment level it has shown to be more productive. I am sure that job security would be a factor but also not the only driver. I can also understand that consider employing a sole person to fill a job to care for their family rather than cutting the job and paying two people less to do the same job, it is admiral. BUT one must consider what is best for the position and people rather than what simply makes us feel good. Unfortunately, the only way to gain increases in business production could be to include job sharing, but simply changing a job is not really good. Job sharing can include day by day, week by week sharing; however, this type generally does not gain the efficiencies of splitting the day. Generally women, who have children, are married or with partner and part time work are just as beneficial as full time work to that family unit. I would suggest better focus on benefits for the individual workers for the job at hand rather than personal preference...
We are not hypocrites. We have three children, and never accepted the baby bonus for either child, nor accpeted any financial payments for maternity leave. Before having our children, we both agreed that my wife would stay at home and care for our children until they reached school age - kindergarten. Non of children went to pre-school or day care centres. Yes it was bloody tough on us both, but the exceptional independent relationships we have with all of our children, was the reward. When we see families today, I don't see the same bond we have as a family. I see disjointed and disconnected families, living seperate and independent lives within a unit, and only held together by the bond of biology. Have a look at the family unit interaction in shopping centre's. Mum is walking around in oblivion, thinking about the next shoe store or dress store she is going to visit. Dad is walking in oblivion, thinking about the tools in Bunnings, and how much more time he has to be here doing this crap. The daughter is walking around in oblivion with her head down texting away on her mobile phone. The son is walking around in oblivion with his Ipod ear phones on wishing he was back home. Occassional, a few basic sentences will pass between them during the whole excursion. Is this a symptomatic problem of modern families who have not bonded, because mothers have not spent enough time with their children? Could we be facing an epidemic within our society, whereby children are bonding with strangers in child care centres and schools, rather than bonding with their own biological families. When I was 18, I was not forced, but was encouraged to go out into the world and get a flat with mates or one by myself and experience my own independence and real life. Now its acceptable behaviour for off-spring between the ages 18 -35 to be still living at home with their parents. Many argue the rationale behind this behaviour is that these individuals cannot afford to live independently, but I believe that is a flawed premises. I now suspect these adult individuals between 18 - 30 who are still living at home, are psychologically craving the attention and affection from thier parents, that they never recieved as children. The primary goal of any business is to make money, but it also has a moral and ethical responsibility to the community to which it serves, and the moral and ethical responsibility of the business towards the community is not always compatible with moral and ethical responsibility Governments have towards the community. The majority of the time politicians (Governments) are dictated by philosophies and agendas decided by their political parties, rather than being true representatitives of what the citizens actually want and need. We have all seen these parasites (politicians) "swanning in" trying to get the most media coverage possible, and making cheap comments about each others inability, when a disaster or tragedy occured. But rearely do they ever say anything that the people already don't know themselves. This is why businesses who are at grass-roots level know what societies need, and have to take a more active role in community development and in advancing the community beyond out-dated political philosophies and agendas. People who own and operate businesses live and work within the community, and are part of the community and society; politicans and political parties are not - they are still living in their Ivory towers of complacency, while everything around them goes to hell in a hand basket. I'm sorry, but my morals will always dictate that I hire an individual so they can support and feed their family, over hiring two individulas, so they can afford to buy a new our-door setting from Harvey Norman.
Aaah yes...the decaying of society...I feel the only purpose of the policy is to secure votes...no other reason...
"Of the 17 top surveyed IMF countries, Labor left us with the fastest growth in spending of anyone in the world... and they left us with the third highest growth in debt of anyone in the top 17," A sobering statistic by Hockey, confirmed by ABC Fact Check. This directly highlites the bad shape the ALP put Australia. The fact it took so many years after the GFC hit for its effects to start destroying the economy means the ALP failed miserably. The ABC go on to note "Mr Hockey's comments on growth in spending and debt compared check out, although he fails to mention the fact that Australia's overall debt as a proportion of GDP remains at comparatively low levels." which to me simply says they had a fantastic starting point left by the Libs. :321:
I don't think anyone could dispute that the coalition left the ALP in a very good financial position before the GFC hit, but they also did this at the expense of social infrasutructure decaying and falling down around their ears for over a decade. I just wonder if the coalition had of keep pace with up-dating social infrastructure, how much money would have been really left in the bank? I suppose it easy for anyone to show-off driving around in a new car, but hiding the facts they are eating home brand baked beans and toast to finance the new car.
Sorry for the late response but have been busy… While we all have been living in a time that nobody received assistance in these areas time have changed. We as a people must move with the times and assist where it is necessary and not where it simply makes people feel good or where it only benefits us. I know the days of old have been hard and that life styles have risen. BUT when we address the inequality of women in the work place it is one thing to complain about the lack of jobs but another to complain about the fact of being passed over due to sex of the applicant. It is not a moral or ethical imperative for business to act in any manner. Sure there are some issues with people who stay at home but I would suggest it has more to do with the fact it was easier to live under the umbrella of their parents than to go out and do it alone. As in many people in jail after long period in penitentiary they cannot cope in the outside world and reoffend simply to return to safety (or place they know best) usually far beyond what they would be capable of. BUT times have changed and difficulties for women to get and retain a job if decent level is becoming harder. This one area is the main excuse for not giving women jobs they would be over qualified for. This policy will change the fact women are still held back but it will go a long way of removing that excuse. Again other welfare payments such as the baby bonus and family payments are different and I do agree they need to go, the problem is how? Business has no ethical or moral responsibility to the community, business has only two goals, to make money and grow. This goes hand in hand but not necessarily the same. If business wants to grow and remain part of the community they need to act in a responsible manner ethically and morally but it is NOT an imperative for them to do so. Government MUST act in a moral and ethical manner as it is the people who they represent NOT the business sector. Party politics should play no part in this area as they BOTH have the same responsibilities to represent the people. People have to remember the government is not there to lead the people but represent them. I would suggest that this goes directly back to your children living at home in their 30’s. They still want a parent looking after them. It is not moral or ethical to hire people in any manner. If you have a job for somebody you hire the best people to fill that job. You might like to feel those people need it, but let us face facts, if you were hire people for moral reasons you would be hiring anybody who wanted to work and not looking to those who best suites the position in your mind. Then the other point of hire two people and assisting two families to survive as you assume that NOW these people are only trying to raise their living standards… Have you forgotten how hard it was in YOUR day??? Maybe if you wife had a job that suited her position at the time, things would have been just that bit easier. Times have changed and it is harder to live in a day where money is harder to come by and moving to assist people in getting and retaining jobs is better than simply paying them to stay at home.
The balloon has been removed from the hands of a fiscal clown and is now in safe fiscally predictable hands and, therefore, will be 'popped' at the right fiscal time. But because of the previous fiscal clown's fiscal gymnastics it will take more than one fiscal period. It's commonly referred to as fiscal prudence.Is that enough 'fiscality' for you?
Its been obvious for decades that politicians could not manage a lemonaide stand on a front lawn, but these stupid people keep voting in these idiots time & time again, and then they run around like chickens with their heads cut off wondering why the country is going bankrupt, and why they are suddenly being forced to work until they are 70 to keep things going. This is what happens when a business puts its hairdresser in control of its accounts and not the accountants. I have no sympathy for these idiots at all, and looking forward to seeing their faces when all this suddenly hits the wall.
What a fool this man is....they propose a deficit levy....the public, the backbenchers, and the OECD mutiny, and a key business lobby group suggests that the deficit tax will be dumped.....spell "egg on face" Hockey...you fool... https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/oecd-warns-hockey-over-heavy-091114161.html
Seriously though...it wasnt that long ago that Swan was being hailed as the worlds best treasurer... Then along came Hockey....slow walking Hockey....slow talking Hockey.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Eyv_C4mc8 and he give 8 Billion to the RBA... Then he talks about the load we all have to carry...what happened to the fantastic economy created by Swan?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2tWwHOXMhI Then the deficit levy is floated.....and appears to have sunk.....well maybe... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecIdlEAKhU&feature=kp Aaah well....reminds me of silly and billy.......
The God of Bluster and Bullsh1t has spoken.... I had to laugh when he talked about the money to be poured into roads and rail... To where Hockey...you fool...mining towns where the mining boom has finished....!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0
As with all of them - he's got what he wanted the most, his eligibility for his $160,000 lifetime No "means tested" No eligibility criteria tax payer funded pension, and all its perks. Not bad, being able to retire from politics on $3000 per week at tax payer expense, and being able to get a fulltime job worth another $500,000 per year as CEO somewhere, and it will never effect his tax payer pension. If only the citizens were allowed the same benefits as the politicians, but you cannot give the slaves the same benefits as the masters.
I would love just a little bit of what the politicians get...but no...us peasants are just given the crumbs... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5kdu7_eurovision-1996-united-kingdom-gina_music
So long as the people keep voting these greedy cruds back into power, then they will only keep getting what they deserve - crumbs from the masters table.
Oops!!!! https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/b...arners-avoid-debt-levy-234712277.html?cmp=ydn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myo9wXrNUP4&feature=kp
We now have the ALP running around like chickens with their heads cut off "crowing" about the budget, but instantly forget the wasted and squandered tax money under their control. Politicians are like a fat kids with a twenty dollar note in a lolly shop - uncontrollable.
Ding ding ding...alarm bells ringing.... Is the super money there!!! Have the stakeholders approached the Government and said We cant pay up...answer...put the accessibility age back... I would not trust this man as far as I could throw him... https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23664781/hockey-flags-first-term-changes-to-super/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2aha4uEpEQ
Just a reminder of what we were complaining about twelve months ago....add to that what has happened since and its like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic....theres not much of a view from a sinking ship.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA
I think it will take a many decades, if not a century - or a majory calamity for Australians to wake-up that the LNP & ALP are just different clowns in the SAME circus. The left & rights arms of a broken system/body that is NOT working anymore, and has not been working for many decades. They are just being herded back to the cave, not away from it.
It's being managed.... instead of being propped up by draining agency budgets to fool everyone like the ALP did. At least this mob is being constructive about the country instead of the ALP who were constructive about hiding the mess and lies.
